The Hopi Tribe v. USEPA, No. 14-73055 (9th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseThe Tribe petitioned for review of the EPA's federal implementation plan (FIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401, for the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona. The FIP was promulgated under the EPA's Tribal Authority Rule that governs CAA requirements on tribal lands. The Tribe claimed that it was not adequately consulted about its interests before the plan was promulgated and objected to a proposed closure of the Station in 2044. The court concluded that no authority allowed it to treat this as a duty to consult, stemming from the general trust relationship with the Indian tribes. In this case, the record showed that the EPA did, in fact, consult with the Hopi Tribe throughout the rulemaking process. Furthermore, while the EPA did not participate in the Technical Working Group (TWG) negotiations, the DOI did. The court also concluded that the record belies the Tribe's contention that the EPA failed to analyze each of the five best available retrofit technology (BART) factors. Because the TWG proposal was an alternative to BART, the court concluded that there was no error in the EPA not analyzing the BART factors under the TWG alternative. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel denied a petition for review by The Hopi Tribe challenging the Environmental Protection Agency’s federal implementation plan under the Clean Air Act for the Navajo Generating Station in Arizona, which concerned the production of haze that hinders clear views of the Grand Canyon. The federal implementation plan was promulgated pursuant to the EPA’s Tribal Authority Rule that governs the Clean Air Act’s requirements on tribal land, and the Hopi Tribe objected to a proposed closure of the Station in 2044. The panel held that the Hopi Tribe’s exclusion from a Technical Working Group, which was a group of stakeholders that developed the proposed Rule, did not violate a duty on the part of the government to consult with the Tribe. The panel held that the record showed that the EPA did consult with the Hopi Tribe during the rulemaking process. HOPI TRIBE V. U.S.E.P.A. 3 The panel rejected the Tribe’s contention that the EPA failed to analyze each of the five BART factors – the “best available retrofit technology” to reduce emissions from the Station. The panel held that because the Technical Working Group proposal was an alternative to BART, there was no error in the EPA not analyzing the BART factors under the Technical Working Group alternative.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.